Change in logbook carrying interpretation?

[PuertoRicoFlyer]

The DHS document mentioned here from the Air and Marine Operations Center specifically states:

***CAVEAT***​

Although Federal Law requires the possesion of, and display upon demand of the aforementioned documents; THERE IS NO CRIMINAL PENALTY SECTION TO THIS LAW. It is therefore not an arrestable offense.

It does however allow for the "reasonable detention" of person(s) while the document check is under way.


The capital letter emphasis is part of the document. I did not add it to this post. I would tell the officer I am not required to carry that document and to contact an FAA office for clarification. Then I would excuse myself and go about my business.

 

[PuertoRicoFlyer]

Well, then, next time you think a LEO is doing something beyond his/her authority, you just refuse to cooperate and tell them they can't do what they're doing. Let us know how it all turns out. Me? I'll let them dig themselves a hole and then let my attorney fill it in on their heads.

EXACTLY what I would do.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

Yes, at your own personal time and expense.

How much personal time and expense will it cost you if you refuse to speak with them and they detain you until they get everything sorted out? My guess is you will spend a lot more of your own time going the uncooperative route.

I disagree completely with your advice. LEOs doesn't have the authority to use "a badge and a gun and handcuffs" without probable cause; they can't run around detaining and arresting folks simply because they feel like it which, by the way, is the entire reason behind the concept of an armed citizenry. I would be interested to know exactly what law I am violating or show intent to violate by not carrying my pilot logbook.

I would love to be a witness to someone trying to use their weapon because of a stupid issue like this. Who in their right mind would use lethal force to press an issue as relatively trivial as this one? Is it a pain in the ass? Yes. Is it worth someone's life? Absolutely not.

LEOs work for you and me, not the other way around. Their job and their authority is to enforce the law as it is written, not as they arbitrarily see fit. They can choose to arrest me, but doing so without probable cause is likely a career-ending move. I suspect that most LEOs are more professional than that.

They have been given faulty guidance by a government office. According to the AMOC document, they aren't going to arrest you, but they would detain you until everything was sorted out to their satisfaction. And since they were following guidance from the department of Homeland Security, my guess is that their careers would survive any complaint you care to make.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

I've sent an email to a friend in AFS-800 (which writes and sets policy on Part 61) about what seems to be happening per the first post in this thread. We'll see what happens.

 

[numl0ck]

Obligatory stupid question from a student pilot: What's a/the LEO?

 

[Rigged4Flight]

Obligatory stupid question from a student pilot: What's a/the LEO?

Law Enforcement Officer

 

[rainsux]

> my guess is that their careers would survive any complaint you care to make.

They will get a cookie and an attaboy for sweating details when dealing with
rich, a-hole pilots.

 

[poadeleted20]

Obligatory stupid question from a student pilot: What's a/the LEO?

Someone who can say this:

I got a star on my car and one on my chest,
A gun on my hip and the right to arrest

Junior Brown, Highway Patrol

 

[Jaybird180]

It does however allow for the "reasonable detention" of person(s) while the document check is under way.

And therein lies the rub, particularly where I live. The police have a bad reputation for abuse of authority and use of excessive force. I have no confidence they know what "reasonable" means.

 

[Palmpilot]

I like the polite approaches suggested by an attorney in posts #4 and #8. Adopting a defiant attitude just strikes me as so much Internet chest-thumping.

It all seems very theoretical to me anyway. Has anyone heard of cases where LEOs demanded to see pilot logbooks? I've never even had one ask to see my pilot certificate.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

It all seems very theoretical to me anyway. Has anyone heard of cases where LEOs demanded to see pilot logbooks?

That's what started this thread.

 

[Palmpilot]

That's what started this thread.

Oops - you're right. Forgot about that.

I still suspect it's a rare occurrence though.

 

[Jaybird180]

You didn't hear about John and Martha King getting arrested??!?!?

 

[Jaybird180]

...granted different issue, but the point is that common sense did not prevail that day.

 

[Skylane81E]

This.

There are numerous laws and procedures that LEO's can ignore/violate with no significant penalty to themselves. Sure, the case will get tossed if you have a competent attorney, but do you really want the enormous amount of pain that goes with it?

Yeah, blatant false arrest for FAR violation is a whole nother deal however. I'll take my chances if they decide to haul me off for not carrying my log book.

 

[BayAreaFlyer]

Yeah, blatant false arrest for FAR violation is a whole nother deal however. I'll take my chances if they decide to haul me off for not carrying my log book.

Im pretty sure if the officer has a letter stating that you have to carry a logbook, even if it's wrong under the FARs, that that's a good faith basis for having probable cause that you're breaking the law and gives him the right to detain you. LEO good faith goes a long way in the probable cause arena.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yeah, blatant false arrest for FAR violation is a whole nother deal however. I'll take my chances if they decide to haul me off for not carrying my log book.

And if they do that to me, I'll be smiling as I go, knowing they just paid for my next engine overhaul and maybe a paint job, too. :wink2:

 

[poadeleted20]

Im pretty sure if the officer has a letter stating that you have to carry a logbook, even if it's wrong under the FARs, that that's a good faith basis for having probable cause that you're breaking the law and gives him the right to detain you. LEO good faith goes a long way in the probable cause arena.

That may protect the individual officer, but not the office that sent that letter.

 

[Jaybird180]

And if they do that to me, I'll be smiling as I go, knowing they just paid for my next engine overhaul and maybe a paint job, too. :wink2:

Hope you have Johnnie Cochran and Robert Kardashian to argue your case, because that's what it'll take. Courts give deference to LEO and other govt offices


Oh, wait.....they're both dead

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hope you have Johnnie Cochran and Robert Kardashian to argue your case, because that's what it'll take. Courts give deference to LEO and other govt offices

You might want to do a little research into lawsuits for official misconduct under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Arrest and overnight detention for something that constitutes completely lawful doing nothing like not carrying a piece of paper not required to be carried? Shouldn't take much more than a halfway decent 1983 lawyer.

 

[Jaybird180]

The law works great on paper.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

You might want to do a little research into lawsuits for official misconduct under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Arrest and overnight detention for something that constitutes completely lawful doing nothing like not carrying a piece of paper not required to be carried? Shouldn't take much more than a halfway decent 1983 lawyer.

Did you read the AMOC document that was attached to this thread? Did you read the several posts that quoted the document? The instructions on the AMOC document said that "THERE IS NO CRIMINAL PENALTY SECTION TO THIS LAW. It is therefore not an arrestable offense. It does however allow for the "reasonable detention" of person(s) while the document check is under way." [underlining added for emphasis]

NOBODY WILL BE ARRESTED.

THERE WILL BE NO ARRESTS.

AN ARREST WILL NOT BE MADE.


​

 

[Rigged4Flight]

...unless, of course, the pilot is being a complete ass. In which case he deserves whatever he gets.

 

[Jaybird180]

What is the effective difference between arrest and detention;....in either case, you are not free to go.

 

[Sac Arrow]

If you think about it, it doesn't make sense to detain someone for not carrying their logbook, for the purpose of inspecting their logbook. How can they produce their logbook if they have been detained?

 

[tonycondon]

If you think about it, it doesn't make sense to detain someone for not carrying their logbook, for the purpose of inspecting their logbook. How can they produce their logbook if they have been detained?

quit using logic

 

[Sac Arrow]

Sigh. How can you eat your pudding if you don't eat your meat.

 

[ChrisK]

I've heard of reasonable suspicion, but I've never heard the term "reasonable detention" outside of shoplifting...

 

[poadeleted20]

Did you read the AMOC document that was attached to this thread? Did you read the several posts that quoted the document? The instructions on the AMOC document said that "THERE IS NO CRIMINAL PENALTY SECTION TO THIS LAW. It is therefore not an arrestable offense. It does however allow for the "reasonable detention" of person(s) while the document check is under way." [underlining added for emphasis]

NOBODY WILL BE ARRESTED.​

THERE WILL BE NO ARRESTS.​

AN ARREST WILL NOT BE MADE.​

I'm pretty sure that unlawful detention is both a crime and a civil tort.

 

[ChrisK]

So the LEO has to suspect that you have committed, are committing, or will commit a crime prior to "detaining" you long enough to inspect your documents. The idea of "detention without arrest" really makes me uncomfortable, and I would feel a lot better about such things if there were specific guidelines around them.

 

[poadeleted20]

So the LEO has to suspect that you have committed, are committing, or will commit a crime prior to "detaining" you long enough to inspect your documents. The idea of "detention without arrest" really makes me uncomfortable, and I would feel a lot better about such things if there were specific guidelines around them.

There are. Google "Terry stop" and read TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

 

[Witmo]

Those of you who think that they'll collect a pot of cash for a LEO's unreasonable detention should be prepared to lay out an even larger pot of cash in lawyer's fees and aggravation. Unless you've got a video tape and witnesses, all the cop has to say is you were uncooperative and interfering with his duties. Prove otherwise. Look at how Congressman Paul got badgered by TSA personnel to explain why he was carrying a wad of cash. He didn't even get an apology as far as I know but luckily he had his encounter taped and the LEO that responded to TSAs call knew there were no grounds for detention.

 

[rainsux]

> Look at how Congressman Paul got badgered by TSA

Not the congresscritter. One of his fundraisers (Bierfeldt). The guy did a
good job of remaining calm, polite & respectful. TSA @ STL? Not so much.
Actually; not at all. TSA falsely claimed to have power to detain. Also
falsely claimed to have LE powers of arrest.

Everyone know how to turn-on the audio record function on their smart
phone? Without a recording, it comes down to he-said, she-said ... and
the prosecutors & courts defer to the LEOs. Sunshine (a recording) is a
terrific disinfectant.

ACLU sued TSA. TSA settled before it could go to court; promising that
it would not happen again.

 

[BayAreaFlyer]

There are. Google "Terry stop" and read TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

One of the grayest areas of criminal law -- there are no bright line "guidelines." No probable cause needed, no definition of what a reasonable detention is. Nor is there any recourse for what you think violated your rights. At the end of the day, you should just swallow your pride, be polite and deferential, and things will go better. The idea that there's a 1983 action based on an improper arrest or temporary detention is pure fantasy -- and the notion that you'd ever see $1 from it is... well let's just say you're more likely ride to court on a unicorn than see that $1.

 

[Palmpilot]

So the LEO has to suspect that you have committed, are committing, or will commit a crime prior to "detaining" you long enough to inspect your documents. The idea of "detention without arrest" really makes me uncomfortable, and I would feel a lot better about such things if there were specific guidelines around them.

Maybe it's not detention, but there's no mention of suspicion of a crime in the 61.3(l) requirement to present your certificates for inspection on request of an LEO. (Same for requests from the Administrator, an NTSB representative, or a TSA representative.)

 

[poadeleted20]

Maybe it's not detention, but there's no mention of suspicion of a crime in the 61.3(l) requirement to present your certificates for inspection on request of an LEO. (Same for requests from the Administrator, an NTSB representative, or a TSA representative.)

For your certificates, yes, but for your logbook, it says "reasonable request" (see 61.51(i)), which has been defined by the FAA Chief Counsel to mean that you must be given a reasonable opportunity to produce it. Any LEO who takes any action against you for not having your logbook in your personal possession (unless you are specifically required by law to have it with you) is operating outside the law, and if that action includes detention, your civil rights are being violated.

 

[Jaybird180]

I'm pretty sure that unlawful detention is both a crime and a civil tort.

Ron, you and I look at the world through two different sets of goggles.

Since I know what you look like (and vice versa), I can understand why you have the veiwpoint you do. Unfortunately (and respectfully), your writing on this subject indicates a level of stubborn naivete that further clarifies why some things just are.

I have no knowledge of your experience with Law Enforcement or the Criminal Justice System, but wearing rose colored glasses at a landfill won't change the smell.

You have failed to address the caveat of "reasonable detention". That's all I'm saying.

 

[Skylane81E]

There are. Google "Terry stop" and read TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Terry stops, Terry pat downs...

 

[Skylane81E]

Those of you who think that they'll collect a pot of cash for a LEO's unreasonable detention should be prepared to lay out an even larger pot of cash in lawyer's fees and aggravation. Unless you've got a video tape and witnesses, all the cop has to say is you were uncooperative and interfering with his duties. Prove otherwise. Look at how Congressman Paul got badgered by TSA personnel to explain why he was carrying a wad of cash. He didn't even get an apology as far as I know but luckily he had his encounter taped and the LEO that responded to TSAs call knew there were no grounds for detention.

Don't know about where you live but around here civil rights violations are a big deal in the courts and Police policy.

Unlawful arrest/detention is a BIG deal and treated as such.

That is also why I rarely happens.

 

[Skylane81E]

Im pretty sure if the officer has a letter stating that you have to carry a logbook, even if it's wrong under the FARs, that that's a good faith basis for having probable cause that you're breaking the law and gives him the right to detain you. LEO good faith goes a long way in the probable cause arena.

So you go after the department for "failure to train"